Imac 20" vs 24" for games (Bootcamp)

M-X

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 6, 2006
40
2
Hi All

First post, already fumbled it...here's the edit:

I was wondering, because of hi res 1920x1200 of the Imac 24, to run to games at native res surely even the 7600gt is gonna choke? Meaning you'll be forced to run at 1680x1050 (ie 20" imac resolution) or lower resolution which kinda defeats the purpose?

Do you think this means the 20" or even the 17" might be a better bet, because the lowly x1600 might fare better with these smaller screens?

Dunno - gonna pull the trigger on one of these babies, or even a MP. Games definitely a priority for me...

Cheers
 

vv-tim

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2006
366
0
Ok... see, if game clarity and detail is a priority for you... more can sometimes be less.

What makes higher resolution settings on games look better is because they can fit more detail into the screen so that it looks less grainy and more refined.

The larger the screen size, the higher the resolution you'll need to have it look nice. That's why World of Warcraft looks absolutely fabulous at 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop screen.

The 17" iMac w/ 256MB VRAM would probably be your best bet for gaming. Honestly, the higher you go you do get more screen real estate which is useful for working, but not really for gaming. You get more pixels, but you also get more space for those pixels to cover, so you're not losing much grain.
 

vv-tim

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2006
366
0
I'mAMac said:
So would the 20" iMac with the 256 mb x1600 be good for gaming? or should i get the 24" with the 7600?
At their native resolutions, the 17" is probably going to perform the best.

It depends on how big of a screen you want, really.
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
Yeah, I ordered the 20" like a week ago. I'll keep that one for a while, then buy the 24". Give the 20" to my dad :p
At least now they won't be coming out with a new iMac for a while so I won't have to worry about that.
 

M-X

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 6, 2006
40
2
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:
I disagree - check out http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html to see how much the iMac 24" with a 7600 card kicks the iMac 20"

Definitely go 24" - you won't regret it :)
Yeah i looked at that - trouble there is no info of the resolutions they've test at. For all we know it could be 1400x900 (or less) across the board. Clearly at medium resolutions the 7600gt will kick butt, but i think 1920x1200 is hardcore even for a 7800 class card if you max out some of the latest games.

I'm just worried I'll go 24" for the sweet screen, then be forced to run at non-native resolution to get decent fps. :confused: well at least hd video will look sweet (tho no blue ray yet)

Really the dream would be a 20" imac with 7600gt or a 24" with 1900xt or the like, as others have mentioned.

I guess a related question is - anyone out there playing latest titles on a 7300gt mp on a 23" ACD and loving it?
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
M-X said:
Yeah i looked at that - trouble there is no info of the resolutions they've test at. For all we know it could be 1400x900 (or less) across the board. Clearly at medium resolutions the 7600gt will kick butt, but i think 1920x1200 is hardcore even for a 7800 class card if you max out some of the latest games.
Yeah it only showed what cards they used. But i definitley never use 1400x900. The most id ever use would be 1200xw/e. Its good enough for me. I dont need extreme resolution. Just good resolution, good detail, and smooth running :)
 

thebeephaha

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2006
300
0
Seattle WA
miniConvert said:
Just visited the link... The 7300GT outperforms the X1600?! That's news to me o_O
Yea, Apple benchmarks are usually full of crap. The 7300 GT doesn't out perform a X1600 Pro, at least in the PC world.
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,223
0
thebeephaha said:
Yea, Apple benchmarks are usually full of crap. The 7300 GT doesn't out perform a X1600 Pro, at least in the PC world.
I may be wrong but I believe the X1600 on the Macbook Pro and iMac is a X1600 "mobility" non-pro which is a pretty big step down (moreso than you think) from the desktop X1600Pro.
 

stapler

macrumors member
Sep 3, 2006
73
0
Chone speaks the truth, the thing is downclocked to 300-something MHz versus 425MHz or so. Pretty significant.
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
Even though it is a mobility it still has the same amount of pixel shader processors just the clock speeds are turned down. It is pretty good for gaming. But no it is not a Pro. They should be able to fit the mid-range X1K cards in there they aren't that big. Why don't they?
 

cgratti

macrumors 6502a
Dec 28, 2004
782
0
Central Pennsylvania, USA
you wont play most games at the high of a resolution, the screen would be to hard to keep track of, especially first person shooters....


I would still go with the 24", it looks like it rocks...
 

greenmac

macrumors regular
Aug 11, 2006
135
0
Adelaide
The X1600 tested was the 128MB version, and the 7300 is 128MB and the 7600 is 256MB.
The X1600 is available in 256MB for the imac as well.
Oh and if you believe apple's specs, the 7300 outperfoms the 7300 in the MacPro and is on par with the X1900!
 

Brad Raple

macrumors newbie
May 7, 2004
25
0
Giant Bucket, USA
Don't forget that the X1600's were downclocked in the MBP's from their "stock" speeds. I don't know if Apple did the same thing on these guys considering the lack of battery life concerns, but I wouldn't doubt it.

I'll let you know tomorrow evening when mine arrives.

BTW, when I ordered mine yesterday, the Apple rep told me that the 7300 is a "monster" video card, and "easily worth $350 alone."

*ahem*

Not quite.
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
Brad Raple said:
Don't forget that the X1600's were downclocked in the MBP's from their "stock" speeds. I don't know if Apple did the same thing on these guys considering the lack of battery life concerns, but I wouldn't doubt it.

I'll let you know tomorrow evening when mine arrives.

BTW, when I ordered mine yesterday, the Apple rep told me that the 7300 is a "monster" video card, and "easily worth $350 alone."

*ahem*

Not quite.
The X1600 were not undeclocked by Apple. In neitehr iMac's or MacBook Pro's. They run just as fast as any other X1600 Pro card.;)
 

M-X

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 6, 2006
40
2
7600gt benchmarks

So I've done a little more research on the x1600 vs the 7600t (the card i would get if i go 24").

Seems like the nvidia card slams the ati pretty hard (http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=3338), although on the test pc, the big games choked a little at hi resolutions (they tested upto 1600x1200 and mostly got fps in the 20s).

Which kinda takes me back to my original query.

However one though is maybe to run at a lower res on the 24" but disable stretching (i assume you can do that in os x as well?) so say you play at 1650x1050 on the 24" but don't stretch the image, it would still look good and give you roughly 20" of viewable area. Making in my book the 24" the better by, as it will outperform the 20" with the x1600.

So i'm pulling the trigger tonight, following spec:

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA drive
Wireless keyboard & wireless Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X
24-inch TFT display
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±RW, CD-RW)
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0

Plus the free nano and printer deal in the UK.

Sweet...

Now I wonder do i keep my 20" Dell screen and run a dual setup :D

Thanks for all the replies

M-X
 

thebeephaha

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2006
300
0
Seattle WA
Chone said:
I may be wrong but I believe the X1600 on the Macbook Pro and iMac is a X1600 "mobility" non-pro which is a pretty big step down (moreso than you think) from the desktop X1600Pro.
You can overclock it up a lot within safe zones, the mobility stock from ati is the same speed as the desktop version, apple just underclocks severely to ease up heat and power use.
 

thebeephaha

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2006
300
0
Seattle WA
Josias said:
The X1600 were not undeclocked by Apple. In neitehr iMac's or MacBook Pro's. They run just as fast as any other X1600 Pro card.;)
Not quite... Mine stock [apple] runs at 310/290, stock [ati] is 470/470... I run it at 400/400.